Do We Have Anything Here?

[mcrowder]

Textbook example of the unfair acts penalty. Kill it, walk it, move on.

[Mike L]

I'm confused. You say B is out of timeouts and the running back (A?) is calling a time out. Why not just grant the time out?

Now then, if your post meant B is on offense and B is out of time outs, could you not just hit B with delay of game for attempting to call a time out they don't have and move along? Are you sure the running back knew he had no time outs? Did he have some equipment problem? Maybe I'd have to see everything going on to make any judgement because you've got some things to consider here rather than just automatically going to the USC. In either event, there's no way a TD is getting scored.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

The rule book says you deny a request for any time out after they have used all three. I don't think you can just flag them for delay as they request it.

[Theisey]

I'm sure the original poster was not referring to the defense (which we commonly call Team-B) as the team who was out of TOs. He said the RB (running back) was the one attempting to call the TO. He probably didn't even realize how he worded the conditions, "B" is the offense in his play.

Read whatever you want into the reason the RB was trying to call a TO, but when no TO's are left, officials have to ignore the request. Sure hit them up for a delay if the 25 second clock expires, but ignore the request.

It was clear to me this was a planned deception to get the defense to relax which was also stated in the play.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by Theisey

I'm sure the original poster was not referring to the defense (which we commonly call Team-B) as the team who was out of TOs. He said the RB (running back) was the one attempting to call the TO. He probably didn't even realize how he worded the conditions, "B" is the offense in his play.

Read whatever you want into the reason the RB was trying to call a TO, but when no TO's are left, officials have to ignore the request. Sure hit them up for a delay if the 25 second clock expires, but ignore the request.

It was clear to me this was a planned deception to get the defense to relax which was also stated in the play.

How was it clear to you? I have nothing on this play absent evidence that it was designed to confuse the defense. The original poster offered none in this case.

[wisref2]

You'd have to be there to judge intent. An easy out? Illegal shift on the RB because he wasn't set for a second before the snap because he was busy calling timeout!

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by wisref2

You'd have to be there to judge intent. An easy out? Illegal shift on the RB because he wasn't set for a second before the snap because he was busy calling timeout!

Nice.

Bossman and Parepat - MJT has the right idea on this one. Think within the framework of the intent of the rule - if it affects the defense (let alone the ENTIRE defense) kill it as an unfair act. It's an easy sell, in my opinion.

[Jim D]

This sounds like a flawed play from the start - A does not seem to be set for a second and B has relaxed. The way I see it in my mind, it's an illegal shift - maybe a false start. I'd really like to shut this play down but I think I'd just have to flag it and let it go.

The only way I'd call USC is if A was signalling for a time out and then all of a sudden, as a team , they stopped, got set and went as if on cue. I just don't think a coach would be "smart" enough for a trick play like this for situation where he had no time outs.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Now then, if your post meant B is on offense and B is out of time outs, could you not just hit B with delay of game for attempting to call a time out they don't have and move along? Are you sure the running back knew he had no time outs? Did he have some equipment problem? Maybe I'd have to see everything going on to make any judgement because you've got some things to consider here rather than just automatically going to the USC. In either event, there's no way a TD is getting scored.

I think the fake/wrong timeout accompanied by an immediate snap after the defense relaxes gives us enough of an idea of the intentions of the offense.

And the notion of hitting them with a DOG, while a great rules idea that I'd love to see implemented, is borrowing a non-existent rule from our basketball brethren. Calling timeout in football when you don't have one is not a techical foul, err... I mean Delay of Game.